Sunday, January 27, 2013

This list is restricted to those female serial killers who
focused their homicidal attention on the murdering of their own babies. Many
serial killer mothers murdered older children (as well as step-children and
child relatives), but these cases are not included here.

Friday, January 25, 2013

FULL
TEXT: Alameda county’s “alimony martyr,” Emil R. Whittenberg, is willing to go
to work and pay alimony in order to get out of jail, but he was still a cell
inmate today, his fourteenth day of imprisonment. No longer is he a militant
striker openly, whatever his private convictions on alimony, he now craves the
freedom of the wide open spaces.

But
Wittenberg’s freedom largely depends upon the consent of his wife to
arrangements by which he may get out of jail and work for her support. Her
attitude today remained constant, if he will pay, he may go free, but no pay,
no freedom.

Conference
between Public Defender Willard Shea and Attorney Clarence De Lancey, counsel
for Mrs. Wittenberg, is being held today over Wittenberg’s plea.

Even
the moral support of Sam W. Reid, famous alimony-martyr of Glenn county, California,
failed to hold Wittenberg against the craving for freedom.

~
ANOTHER SYMPATHIZER. ~

Wittenberg’s
plight has attracted another sympathizer, C. M. Castellazzo, box 1533 Redwood
road, Castellazzo wants to enlist the men in a general campaign against the "women’s clubs.” “It will take manhood to put it over,” he wrote Wittenberg.

Castellazzo’s
letter says in part:

I read with interest
that, you are forming an Anti-Alimony club. I understand that the club will urge special
legislation for alimony payers. Let me inform you that it will take move than
mere urging to put it over.

You have the combined forces of women’s clubs
against you. You note that the women’s clubs which claim to have high ideals
and an eagerness for righteousness are not helping you in your predicament. It
will take manhood to put it over. It requires initiative by taking what is
right, not mere urging.

I
, too, am forming a club. It will stand for more than Anti-Alimony. The club
will stand for Anti-Alimony, Anti-Prohibition, Anti-Hypocrisy, and a few other
important items which I do not care to discuss by letter.

All
men worthy of the name men, who are not mentally degenerate, such as those who
figure that the women are always right – are eligible to the club. Since you
state that you are without funds, I am enclosing a 2-cent stamp, should you
wish to make a reply. Wishing you the best of luck, I am,

Very truly yours,C.
M. CASTELLAZZO...

~
POOR MEN, SAYS THIS WRITER ~

Signing
himself “Another Alimony Dodger,” still another supporter came to Wittenberg’s
camp today. He said:

“Dear
Sir:

“It
is with interest I read of your case, and I heartily sympathize with your case.
America is today run by women. When a man is so foolish as to marry one of
them, he is done for, so long as she cares to hang on to him.

“About the only relief that the man has is that some
other bonehead will come along and take friend wife off his hands. Every man of
experience knows that most wives will not give up one meal ticket until she has
the next in sight.

“I am wondering if there isn’t a better way out of
your difficulties than the one you have chosen. Isn’t it possible for you to
pay tip and leave California? It seems a shame that you should have to waste
your time and lose your freedom over such a trifling matter.

“You are at least lucky in being divorced. Some of
us have not been so fortunate. I personally spent about four hours in jail, and
three weeks later, when I got things
inshape, I took a 2000-mile trip for my health. I found my health so
much better that I have never gone hack.

“You will only afford your alimony-grabber
satisfaction by remaining in jail when you might be working to your own
advantage if you were free and out of California.

“More power to you! I hope you never pay, but that,
you will work out some scheme to beat the alimony graft.

“American men are today the laughing stock of the
rest of the world, and of their more intelligent fellow Americans – and they
deserve to be.

“Never in the history of the human race have men
fallen into such a preposterous situation as that of most American husbands.
The humor of the situation lies in the fact unil they have built the net in
which they are now floundering. One by one they have passed stupid and asinine
laws till today a man has as much right to say what shall be done with his
properly, his children, or even his person, as a jack ass.

“Well, I must close. Here’s a handshake for you and
all the fellow alimony dodgers. Perhaps in time other slaves will gee the light
and stand out against this asinine and tyrannous graft. Until that time it will
be each of us for himself and the devil take the hindmost.”

Normally, I do not list cases in which there are not 3 or
more separate murders (or attempts). There are, however, some exceptions:
youthful killers and Black Widows with 2 victims. Here are examples of these:

***
Peter Vronsky's list, published in 2007, containing 140 female serial
killer cases, lists only five 19th century US cases: Bender, Cannon,
Jackson, Robinson and Sherman. I have not included Rachel Wall, the
piratess executed in Massachusetts in 1789, on my list, as it is
uncertain what her role might have been in the 24 murders attributed to
the crew with which she was associated.

The following article from 1873 demonstrates that the
current widely-held belief that serial killers of the female sex are an anomaly
was not held back then. Nor was that belief held in the 1920s either (“Three Women Who Admit Poisoning 29 Persons,” May 1, 1925). The myth of female
killers’ being rare, in comparison with males, and related myths (that serial
killers are primarily Caucasians or that they are rare outside North America)
are of fairly recent origin (1980s).

FULL
TEXT: Another female poisoner has been brought to justice. Recently, at
Germantown, Ohio, public attention was attracted to the simultaneous poisoning
by arsenic of three members of a family named Hanna, while visiting the house
of a kinswoman, one Sarah Earhardt. Fortunately the amount administered to each
of the intended victims proved insufficient to cause death. Upon investigation
evidence was produced, if correct, proving the woman Earlhardt to be as great a
monster as either Lydia Sherman, Jane Ann Cotton or Mrs. Grinder. She is now in
custody on a charge of having attempted to take the lives of the three Hannas,
and it is to be the intention of the State prosecuting counsel to introduce
testimony at the trial to show that she has poisoned her husband, her son’s
wife, her son-in-law’s child, and her husband’s first wife, all within a few
years. Minor crimes, such its the poisoning of juvenile animals and the burning
of numerous houses, are also said to be among the number of her achievements.
By the death of the Hannas she would have come into possession of a
considerable amount of property. The most extraordinary circumstance in
connection with this case is that the woman is upward of seventy years of age.

A commonly cited statistic is that 16% of known serial
murderers in the United States from 1800 and 1995 are female The total number
of female serial killers known to the criminologist who proposed this ratio was
62 (Hickey, 2002; 213). As you can see, the count (on this website) at present
of known female serial killer cases before
1900 is currently 65, the vast majority of which are unknown to even
specialized scholars.

It is also been claimed by criminologists that
three-quarters of female serial killers in the US made their appearance since
1950, and that a full half only since 1975. (Hickey, 2002; 215). Thus it is
often stated that the phenomenon is increasing at an extraordinary rate. Yet,
the fact is that today’s criminologists are relying upon the scanty, incomplete
research done by earlier generations of crime historians – without taking into
account the fact that the subject female serial killers of the past (before the
1970s) have never been systematically and thoroughly researched by scholars.

A great many false assumptions about incidence of such cases
and about larger questions of female psychopathology and criminality are
challenged by the new research on female serial killers that is presented on
this website.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Most feminists have mastered the intricacies of Einstein’s
theory of relativity, having taken a minimum of 24 hours of 300 level or higher
Gender Studies courses. Unlike a patriarch, a well-educated feminist can
explain Einstein’s groundbreaking concept, the question of its veracity as well
as its scientific significance, in only a few words, such as these:

“Everything is relative, right?”

“Einstein proved that, didn’t he?”

***

So get with the post-modern program. Don’t be patriarchal; study
critical theory. It is progressive! Wayyyy progressive!

Gramsci rules! The “long march though the institutions”continues. Oppressors beware.

“Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere
social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)”

“From a young age she showed a perverse nature.” (Carlos
Conde, former husband)

Felícitas Sánchez Aguillón or Sánchez Neyra (1890 -
June 16, 1941) was a Mexican nurse, midwife, baby farmer and serial killer,
active during the 1930s in Mexico City, who killed babies in her care. It is
estimated that Felícitas
murdered children in numbers ranging from between40 and nearly a hundred. Her victims were
aged from newborn to three years old. Typically she would poison or strangle the
children, according to some reports sometimes she would dismember a child while
still living. Felícitas was
given various sobriquets by the Mexican press, such as "The Ogress of
Colonia Roma", "The Female Ripper of Colonia Roma"
and "The Human Crusher of little angels."

Felícitas was born in
1890 in Cerro Azul, Veracruz. Her mother never loved her and showed her
affection. This caused her a psychopathic personality and aversion to all the
maternal. Since childhood she showed a perverse behavior, habitually poisoning
street dogs. During the 1900s, she graduated as a nurse and married Carlos
Conde. She had twin daughters with him but didn't want to take care of them,
and suggested to her husband that they give them up for adoption. He accepted
this proposal, but after the daughters had been adopted, he changed his mind.
However, Sánchez refused to tell him where their daughters were, which led to
their divorce in 1910.

In that year
Sánchez moved to Mexico City. In Mexico City, she lived in an apartment
building located on Salamanca Street, Colonia Roma. She started to attend
births and illegally practice abortions. She also began to trade in illegal
adoptions. During the 1910s she was arrested twice for practicing illegal
adoption and baby farming.

As with many
other baby farmers across the world, Felícitas
would take money from the mother of a newborn, promising to use the funds to
care for the child until they could be given an adopted home. The truth was,
she would sell those she could rid herself of as quickly as possible, and if
the child was not sold within a few days she would murder it. According to one
source she enjoyed beating her victims.

She dismembered
the bodies and incinerated them. Dosing the flesh with gasoline before throwing
them in the large furnace she had installed for that purpose, and in other
cases she would flush the body parts down the toilet.

On April 8, 1941,
human remains were discovered near her home. Three days later Felícitas Sánchez
was arrested, along with two accomplices: her second husband Roberto or Alberto
Covarrubías and a plumber, Salvador Martínez, who worked for Sánchez.

On July 16, 1941,
before she could be tried for her crimnes, Felícitas Sánchez committed suicide.
She and her second husband had a third daughter, who was placed in state care
after her father was convicted for involvement in the murders.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

The significance of the hugely influential 1970 book, The Female Eunuch, by Germaine Greer, is
eloquently explained in this important article on the origins of the misandrist
tyranny that we see growing like a cancer around us: